S.20.3-17: Preserve our Marine Life Act (Law'd)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:57:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  S.20.3-17: Preserve our Marine Life Act (Law'd)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: S.20.3-17: Preserve our Marine Life Act (Law'd)  (Read 736 times)
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 11, 2020, 06:28:35 PM »
« edited: September 25, 2020, 05:21:52 PM by tmthforu94 »

Quote
Preserve our Marine Life Act

1. Sealing and the sale of products produced in the past 30 years through sealing is prohibited. Violators shall be fined up to $100,000 for sale and up to $500,000 for sealing.

2. The taking of cetaceans by any person in Southern waters for purposes not authorized by the Southern government is prohibited. Permits shall only be authorized for scientific research, for enhancing the survival or recovery of a marine mammal species, or temporary educational photography purposes. Violators shall be fined up to $500,000. This clause does not apply to incidental take during commercial activities.

3. Commercial gill netting in oceanic waters is prohibited. Drift nets longer than 2.5km are prohibited. All drift nets are required to be made from biodegradable materials and incorporate pingers in sufficient quantities. Violators shall be fined up to $100,000.

4. All ships engaged in midwater trawling must include a device to exclude cetaceans or allow them to escape, such as a Nordmore grate. Violators shall be fined up to $50,000.

5. All ships engaged in purse seine fishing are required to incorporate Medina panels into their nets and engage in backing-down procedures. Violators shall be fined up to $50,000.

6. All appropriate regulatory agencies are directed to consider marine life safety as a major objective and to shift and narrow maritime traffic separation schemes as appropriate, including outright avoidance of key areas, and are further directed to consider the impact of oceanic noise created by commercial shipping and mineral exploration on such regulations.

7. Power plants that discharge water that has been used by the plant with no significant alterations save temperature are directed to prevent any undue restrictions to access to their discharge canals by marine life.

8. All commercial operations that operate to observe marine life their native habitat are directed to maintain no more than a no wake speed when knowingly operating within 500 feet of a cetacean, and may not pursue, encircle, or come in between the members of a pod, make unnecessary sudden turns, make excessive noise, or approach such animals at an angle by which they would be taken by surprise. These operations also may not allow swimming with these cetaceans or coerce cetaceans into bow-riding. Violators shall be fined up to $25,000 per offense.

Sponsor: Tmthforu94

Minimum 48 hours for debate.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2020, 06:38:08 PM »

Bringing this to the floor since our queue is getting low again. This was also a bill that was previously a law but hasn't been enacted post-reset (to my knowledge). Credit to Maxwell for writing it initially and Donerail for their contributions.

This should be pretty straightforward, it essentially bans whaling and other unethical fishing products and institutes fines for those who do it.

Link to original debate: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=193129.0
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,119
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2020, 09:50:56 AM »

Banning whaling wholesale, explicitly or not, strikes me as unnecessary as whales are a highly diverse collection of species which are of various status in terms of actual danger. I certainly don't favor allowing the whaling of endangered whales species in the South but some whales species are in fact even least-concern.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,119
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2020, 09:56:45 AM »
« Edited: September 12, 2020, 10:00:11 AM by Southern Governor Punxsutawney Phil »

Regardless of whatever provisions exist in regards to whaling though, we need to make sure we have a strongly enforced permit system if it is not banned. I'm not against hefty fines for those caught violating the law here.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2020, 01:00:11 PM »

Doing more research, to be clear whaling is already largely banned, per the Marine Mammal Protection Act passed federally in 1972. Whales as a whole are considered endangered - the Belugas are the most hunted still in the United States and are threatened, and others are endangered and critically endangered. This would largely just add higher fines to increase the enforcement of bans already in place, also would keep it illegal in the region should the federal government ever repeal.

Latest stat I found: 1,590 Beluga whales were killed in the US from 2010-14.
Logged
fhtagn
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Vatican City State


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 12, 2020, 01:36:17 PM »

Doing more research, to be clear whaling is already largely banned, per the Marine Mammal Protection Act passed federally in 1972. Whales as a whole are considered endangered - the Belugas are the most hunted still in the United States and are threatened, and others are endangered and critically endangered. This would largely just add higher fines to increase the enforcement of bans already in place, also would keep it illegal in the region should the federal government ever repeal.

Latest stat I found: 1,590 Beluga whales were killed in the US from 2010-14.

Beluga whales don't inhabit Southern waters.
Logged
diptheriadan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,371


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 12, 2020, 03:07:44 PM »

I echo DeadPrez's sentiment in the previous thread.
Logged
KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸
KoopaDaQuick
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,299
Anguilla


Political Matrix
E: -8.50, S: -5.74


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2020, 04:17:39 PM »
« Edited: September 12, 2020, 04:21:24 PM by KoopaDaQuick »

One question I have: why only specifically cetaceans? While a few seals do exist off the northeastern and eastern coasts of the region, and whales do exists along our Atlantic coast, why specifically cetaceans? Is it because they're cuter or something? I'm all for animal conservation, and I'm also all for protecting marine animals in Dixie, but while this bill does raise a good point, I don't particularly like the execution. It's too broad to protect any individual animal specifically to its needs, and too narrow to include all of the creatures who don't belong to this particular infraorder.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,119
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2020, 04:32:02 PM »

One question I have: why only specifically cetaceans? While a few seals do exist off the northeastern and eastern coasts of the region, and whales do exists along our Atlantic coast, why specifically cetaceans? Is it because they're cuter or something? I'm all for animal conservation, and I'm also all for protecting marine animals in Dixie, but while this bill does raise a good point, I don't particularly like the execution. It's too broad to protect any individual animal specifically to its needs, and too narrow to include all of the creatures who don't belong to this particular infraorder.
Even one set of rules for whales and another for fish would be highly off-base because both are extremely variable in terms of actual status. Whale and fish are huge umbrella groups, not species.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2020, 04:44:55 PM »

One question I have: why only specifically cetaceans? While a few seals do exist off the northeastern and eastern coasts of the region, and whales do exists along our Atlantic coast, why specifically cetaceans? Is it because they're cuter or something? I'm all for animal conservation, and I'm also all for protecting marine animals in Dixie, but while this bill does raise a good point, I don't particularly like the execution. It's too broad to protect any individual animal specifically to its needs, and too narrow to include all of the creatures who don't belong to this particular infraorder.
I don't disagree on the fact that the initial text seems to specify solely on cetaceans, however Clause 3 through 7 would apply broadly and benefit/ preserve all ocean wildlife. I have also reached out to the initial author of these amendments if they'd like to expand on it and provide better clarification.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2020, 05:10:00 PM »

One question I have: why only specifically cetaceans? While a few seals do exist off the northeastern and eastern coasts of the region, and whales do exists along our Atlantic coast, why specifically cetaceans? Is it because they're cuter or something? I'm all for animal conservation, and I'm also all for protecting marine animals in Dixie, but while this bill does raise a good point, I don't particularly like the execution. It's too broad to protect any individual animal specifically to its needs, and too narrow to include all of the creatures who don't belong to this particular infraorder.

The intent of the bill, as far as I can recall, was to institute a variety of regulations on fisheries in order to reduce marine mammal bycatch, similar to the requirements that already exist in federal law for the use of turtle excluder devices in bottom trawling. As a practical matter, the effects would mostly be limited to dolphins and porpoises (there's not a lot of sperm whales getting caught in purse seines).

I'm sympathetic to the argument that dolphins deserve heightened legal protections on account of their intelligence, but I believe the bill is limited to cetaceans on more practical grounds — they frequently drown in fishing nets and the changes necessary to avoid that are relatively low-cost. I disagree with the assessment that the language is too broad to protect any particular animal; it's narrowly targeted to focus on the nets used in various fisheries and specifies which nets are and are not acceptable, with a couple additional provisions to address specific problems related to power plants and commercial tourism.
Logged
KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸
KoopaDaQuick
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,299
Anguilla


Political Matrix
E: -8.50, S: -5.74


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2020, 05:31:37 PM »
« Edited: September 12, 2020, 05:42:35 PM by KoopaDaQuick »

One question I have: why only specifically cetaceans? While a few seals do exist off the northeastern and eastern coasts of the region, and whales do exists along our Atlantic coast, why specifically cetaceans? Is it because they're cuter or something? I'm all for animal conservation, and I'm also all for protecting marine animals in Dixie, but while this bill does raise a good point, I don't particularly like the execution. It's too broad to protect any individual animal specifically to its needs, and too narrow to include all of the creatures who don't belong to this particular infraorder.

I don't disagree on the fact that the initial text seems to specify solely on cetaceans, however Clause 3 through 7 would apply broadly and benefit/ preserve all ocean wildlife. I have also reached out to the initial author of these amendments if they'd like to expand on it and provide better clarification.

Yes, I do agree that a fair amount of this act actually makes sense and would generally benefit oceanlife, but I don't get why this bill's title as well its clauses regarding cetaceans have such a too broad yet too narrow scope when it comes to its protections.

Earlier this year, I wrote a bill that made it to the parliament floor, the Please Don't Club Seals Act (FT 14.25). After the end of debate, I asked myself a question that I didn't ask myself while writing it: What makes sealing so special? According to the IUCN Red List, which is claimed by many to be a biological diversity index of great authority, there are three recognized specials of pinniped that are currently endangered: the Caspian seal, the Mediterranean monk seal, and the Hawaiian monk seal. While there are 3 recognized seal species that are endangered, there are, according to the IUCN themselves, over 32,000 species of animal in the world currently threatened with extinction. So, why do we care so much about giant pandas and seals and not about Atlantic bluefin tunas or Vu Quang oxen, which are in just as big, or if not bigger, trouble? Well, the fact of the matter is that us humans don't really care about these particular species, either because they aren't cute enough, or because they aren't that useful for human domestication.

We do these horrible acts to pretty much every animal under the sun, from the pinniped to the pig. There is just as much animal torture in your average fur coat as there is inside your average Big Mac. The only difference is that fur coats don't taste that good. Unless if you plan on passing a bill banning the killing of cows and pigs later down the line, I don't see why these special protections are necessary.

As for the laws preventing seals and whales from being caught in fishing nets, I think it's best for everyone that we omit that from this particular bill and discuss it in its own separate bill.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2020, 11:50:59 AM »

Based on the point Koopa addressed, offering an amendment that removes much of the specificity towards cetaceans. I did feel that some of the clauses should still specify them - for example, Clauses 3 and 4 - it defeats the purpose of a net if any marine life animal can escape, but I still think it is relevant towards overall marine life safety to leave it in for cetaceans.

I'm also including this amendment an adjustment in fines, from "no less" to "up to" to create more flexibility. Using "no less" basically allows for an infinite $ fine, which I'm uncomfortable with.

Quote
Preserve our CetaceansMarine Life Act

1. Whaling, sealing, and the sale of products produced in the past 30 years through whaling or sealing is prohibited. Violators shall be fined no less than up to $100,000 for sale and not less than up to $500,000 for whaling or sealing.

2. The taking of marine mammals cetaceans by any person in Southern waters for purposes not authorized by the Southern government is prohibited. Permits shall only be authorized for scientific research, for enhancing the survival or recovery of a marine mammal species, or temporary educational photography purposes. Violators shall be fined not less than up to $500,000. This clause does not apply to incidental take during commercial activities.

3. Commercial gill netting in oceanic waters is prohibited. Drift nets longer than 2.5km are prohibited. All drift nets are required to be made from biodegradable materials and incorporate pingers in sufficient quantities to deter cetaceans. Violators shall be fined no less than up to $100,000.

4. All ships engaged in midwater trawling must include a device to exclude cetaceans or allow them to escape, such as a Nordmore grate. Violators shall be fined not less than up to $50,000.

5. All ships engaged in purse seine fishing are required to incorporate Medina panels into their nets and engage in backing-down procedures to allow dolphins to leave the nets. Violators shall be fined not less than up to $50,000.

6. All appropriate regulatory agencies are directed to consider cetaceanmarine life safety as a major objective and to shift and narrow maritime traffic separation schemes as appropriate, including outright avoidance of key areas, and are further directed to consider the impact of oceanic noise created by commercial shipping and mineral exploration on such regulations.

7. Power plants that discharge water that has been used by the plant with no significant alterations save temperature are directed to prevent any undue restrictions to access to their discharge canals by marine mammalslife.

8. All commercial operations that operate to observe cetaceansmarine life in their native habitat are directed to maintain no more than a no wake speed when knowingly operating within 500 feet of a cetacean, and may not pursue, encircle, or come in between the members of a pod, make unnecessary sudden turns, make excessive noise, or approach such animals at an angle by which they would be taken by surprise. These operations also may not allow swimming with these cetaceans or coerce cetaceans into bow-riding. Violators shall be fined up to $25,000 per offense.

24 hours for objections.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2020, 12:34:19 PM »

The amendment is adopted, debate resumes.
Logged
reagente
Atlas Politician
Jr. Member
*****
Posts: 1,832
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.10, S: 4.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 16, 2020, 09:50:41 AM »

Banning whaling wholesale, explicitly or not, strikes me as unnecessary as whales are a highly diverse collection of species which are of various status in terms of actual danger. I certainly don't favor allowing the whaling of endangered whales species in the South but some whales species are in fact even least-concern.

I agree with this comment.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 16, 2020, 11:59:08 AM »
« Edited: September 16, 2020, 12:03:24 PM by tmthforu94 »

If a delegate wants to offer an amendment to strike that section I’m fine with that if it means passing the bill. As stated before, it is already restricted at the federal level so this is just adding a second layer of protection.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2020, 10:42:42 PM »
« Edited: September 19, 2020, 10:48:04 PM by tmthforu94 »

If no amendments are being offered, I am motioning for a final vote. I've made efforts to satisfy every concern made in this thread aside from whaling, which I've noted is already federal law, which hopefully satisfies the concerns there. This bill implements important protections that had been previously in place that will serve as protection for all marine life.

24 hours for objections.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,119
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2020, 08:55:39 AM »

Could the direct mention of whaling in Section 1 be struck from the bill altogether?
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2020, 01:29:45 PM »

If this is what is holding people up, I will strike it to ensure final passage. I am thankful that our federal government has taken steps to ban whaling federally - it is a cruel and unnecessary practice. By offering this amendment, I am not condoning whaling, but I believe other provisions of this bill are important to be enacted. 

Section 1 is amended to read:
Quote
Preserve our Cetaceans Act
1. Whaling, Sealing and the sale of products produced in the past 30 years through whaling or sealing is prohibited. Violators shall be fined up to $100,000 for sale and up to $500,000 for whaling or sealing.

24 hours for objections.

"Top 10 reasons" to not kill whales: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/18358/10-reasons-to-not-kill-whales/
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2020, 03:24:19 PM »

The amendment is adopted, debate resumes.

I am calling for a final vote again. 24 hours for objections. Hopefully delegates are satisfied with the changes made, if not please let me know and I'm happy to work with folks to get this passed.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2020, 07:37:23 PM »

A final vote has started on the below text, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

Quote
Preserve our Cetaceans Act

1. Sealing and the sale of products produced in the past 30 years through sealing is prohibited. Violators shall be fined up to $100,000 for sale and up to $500,000 for sealing.

2. The taking of cetaceans by any person in Southern waters for purposes not authorized by the Southern government is prohibited. Permits shall only be authorized for scientific research, for enhancing the survival or recovery of a marine mammal species, or temporary educational photography purposes. Violators shall be fined up to $500,000. This clause does not apply to incidental take during commercial activities.

3. Commercial gill netting in oceanic waters is prohibited. Drift nets longer than 2.5km are prohibited. All drift nets are required to be made from biodegradable materials and incorporate pingers in sufficient quantities. Violators shall be fined up to $100,000.

4. All ships engaged in midwater trawling must include a device to exclude cetaceans or allow them to escape, such as a Nordmore grate. Violators shall be fined up to $50,000.

5. All ships engaged in purse seine fishing are required to incorporate Medina panels into their nets and engage in backing-down procedures. Violators shall be fined up to $50,000.

6. All appropriate regulatory agencies are directed to consider marine life safety as a major objective and to shift and narrow maritime traffic separation schemes as appropriate, including outright avoidance of key areas, and are further directed to consider the impact of oceanic noise created by commercial shipping and mineral exploration on such regulations.

7. Power plants that discharge water that has been used by the plant with no significant alterations save temperature are directed to prevent any undue restrictions to access to their discharge canals by marine life.

8. All commercial operations that operate to observe marine life their native habitat are directed to maintain no more than a no wake speed when knowingly operating within 500 feet of a cetacean, and may not pursue, encircle, or come in between the members of a pod, make unnecessary sudden turns, make excessive noise, or approach such animals at an angle by which they would be taken by surprise. These operations also may not allow swimming with these cetaceans or coerce cetaceans into bow-riding. Violators shall be fined up to $25,000 per offense.
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2020, 07:39:53 PM »

Aye
Logged
Holy Unifying Centrist
DTC
Atlas Politician
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,200


Political Matrix
E: 9.53, S: 10.54

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2020, 07:40:28 PM »

Abstain
Logged
KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸
KoopaDaQuick
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,299
Anguilla


Political Matrix
E: -8.50, S: -5.74


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2020, 08:29:21 PM »

With the amendments made to this bill, I am now comfortable and confident in voting Aye.
Logged
reagente
Atlas Politician
Jr. Member
*****
Posts: 1,832
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.10, S: 4.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2020, 10:19:46 PM »

Nay
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 13 queries.